Analyzing a Theft Case

This assignment examines the appeal of Sam Kant, convicted of petty theft. Kant argued he did not commit theft because he intended to exchange stolen goods with purchased goods and had already paid for the latter. The analysis delves into relevant legal definitions of theft, larceny, and theft by false pretenses, applying them to Kant's case. The summary evaluates Kant's legal arguments and explores their potential success.

PARALEGAL STUDIES 1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SAM KANT
Defendant and Appellant.
No. B112321.
Decided: September 04, 1998
On Appeal from the Judgment and Order of the
Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County
The Honourable Bill Sampson, Judge
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
By Appointment of the
Fifth District Court of Appeal
California Appellate Program
Independent Case System

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881
People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181
United States v. McConney (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1195
Statutes
Pen. Code, § 459.5
Pen. Code, § 460
Pen. Code, § 1170.18
Mark Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Santa Cruz, for Defendant
and Appellant. Assistant Attorney General, John Rileson for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Sam Kant appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by jury of
petty theft with a prior. (Pen.Code, § 666.) The case arose when Kant went into
Bilmart, the department store, on 20th September 2017, took a case of six 4 oz. cans of
Handell’s Baked Beans with Bacon from a rack, which he intended to replace with the
case of six 4 oz. cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon he had purchased a day
before from the store. Kant did not claim ownership of Handell’s Baked Beans.
Bilmart’s security personnel had seen Kant hiding the case of six 4 oz. cans of Hoover’s
Baked Beans with Bacon into a trolley full of merchandise. Security personnel arrested
Kant as he was trying to leave the store with the exchanged merchandise.
DISCUSSION
Theft, of which Kant was convicted, does seem to be unlawful taking of another's
property. (§ 484; People v. Creath (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 312, 318, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d
336). It also seems to be a crime of larceny, larceny by trick and theft by false pretences.
(Ibid; CALJIC No. 14.00 (6th ed.1996)). Larceny by trick involves taking another
person’s property without the owner's consent (Callan v. Superior Court (1962) 204
Cal.App.2d 652, 667-8, 22 Cal.Rptr. 508. Theft by false pretences does not require that
the defendant actually takes the property, it requires that the defendant shall use false
pretences and induce the other person to give the property to him. (CALJIC No. 14.10).

In the case of Kant, both the above counts do not stand substantiated, and as a matter of
law, he did not commit neither completed a theft. First, the defendant cannot be
convicted of having committed a completed theft as he had put the case of six 4 oz. cans
of Handell’s Baked Beans with Bacon back into the trolley with an intent of exchange.
He never intended to remove the merchandise from the store. Second, the defendant had
already paid the full amount of the merchandise, hence he never intended to deprive the
store of the merchandise.